DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026. Therefore, the restriction is made final herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-11, 17-18 recite a mathematical concept, because claim 1 and 18 provide mathematical calculations on image data, which is essentially mathematical data. Furthermore, claims 2,3 and 17 only provides limitations describing what mathematical data is being compared, claim 5 only describes more mathematical calculations using machine learning, claims 6-8, 10 describes the type of data used for machine learning, claim 9 specifies the type of machine learning, which all amount to mathematical calculations. Claim 11 recites where the unit is located on a server, which is not a particular machine, since a server is a mere generic computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a color is determined but not applied to any type of practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not provide any type of particular machine that carries out the method. All the units, as described, are being interpreted as hardware components of a generic computer, as described in the applicant’s specification (i.e. in the applicant’s PGPub, page 4, paragraph 77) and explained below, which does not amount to significantly more. It is noted that because the claim is being interpreted under 112(f) there is not an additional 101 rejection regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims being functional descriptive material.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an image acquisition unit” and “a color discrimination unit” in claim 1, “a model construction unit” and “a learning unit” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the reflected light component" in lines 7-8. The applicant previously claims two “a reflected light component”s. It is unclear as to which component the applicant is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220138986 (Wei).
Regarding claim 18, Wei discloses A color discrimination method (fig. 5) comprising: acquiring two or more types of images among a visible image (page 3, paragraph 26, fig. 5, input) including a visible light component (fig. 5, components are visible light) obtained by imaging a subject (fig. 1, item 103), a reflection suppressing image in which a reflected light component is suppressed, i.e. the a.b channels of fig. 5, and a reflection component image from which the reflected light component is extracted, i.e. the L channel of fig. 5; and discriminating a color of the subject on a basis of the two or more types of images previously acquired (fig. 5, output of ANN).
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 18 are equally applicable to claim 1. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 18 only in that claim 1 is a device claim with units that carry out the method of claim 18. Wei teaches further this feature, i.e. figs. 1 and 3, items 102, 104.
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses the color discrimination unit discriminates the color of the subject on a basis of a result of comparing each of the two or more types of images acquired by the image acquisition unit (fig. 5, input image) with a plurality of reference images each having a known color and a surface treatment specification, a training data set with known color (page 5, paragraph 57) and type of surface (page 2, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses a model construction unit (fig. 3, item 104, fig. 4) that constructs a machine learning model (fig. 4, item 503) that discriminates a color of the subject on a basis of the two or more types of images input (fig. 5, output of item 503);and a learning unit (fig. 3, item 104) that performs learning of the machine learning model (fig. 4) on a basis of the plurality of reference images (fig. 4, item 403, page 5, paragraph 57),wherein the color discrimination unit discriminates the color of the subject on a basis of a color output from the machine learning model when the two or more types of images are input to the machine learning model (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Wei discloses the learning unit performs learning of the machine learning model on a basis of the plurality of reference images (page 5, paragraph 57) each having a known color (page 5, paragraph 57) and a surface treatment specification, the type of surface for the model (page 2, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 9, Wei discloses the machine learning model includes a neural network (fig. 4, “ANN”) having an updatable weighting factor, i.e. the parameters of the ANN that are updated through backward propagation (fig. 4, page 5, paragraph 60), and the learning unit updates the weighting factor on a basis of the plurality of reference images (Page 4, paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 10, Wei discloses each of the plurality of reference images, m sets (fig. 4 item 403, page 6, paragraph 61) includes a reference visible image including a visible light component (fig. 4, item 403), a reference reflection suppressing image in which a reflected light component is suppressed, i.e. fig. 4, a, b, and a reference reflection component image from which the reflected light component is extracted, i.e. fig.4, L, and the learning unit performs learning of the machine learning model on a basis of a plurality of the reference visible image, a plurality of the reference reflection suppressing image, and a plurality of the reference reflection component image corresponding to the plurality of reference images (fig. 4, learning process, pages 5-6, paragraphs 57-60).
Regarding claim 11, Wei discloses the model construction unit is provided in a server connected to a network (page 3, paragraph 33, page 6, paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 17, Wei discloses the surface treatment specification includes at least one of metallic coating or solid coating of the subject, i.e. dashboard of an automobile, stucco, a section of a wall (page 2, paragraph 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 7, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wei, as applied to claims 1and 5 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130208285 (Miettinen et al).
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Wei further discloses the color discrimination unit discriminates the color of the subject on a basis of a result of comparing each of the two or more types of images acquired by the image acquisition unit (fig. 5, input image) with a plurality of reference images each having a known color and a surface treatment specification, a training data set with known color (page 5, paragraph 57) and type of surface (page 2, paragraph 21).
Wei does not disclose expressly reference data is captured under at least one of different environmental conditions or imaging conditions.
Miettinen et al discloses reference data is captured under at least one of different environmental conditions or imaging conditions (page 1, paragraph 21).
Wei & Miettinen et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. measuring color.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple imaging conditions.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate device by accounting for different properties with different conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device of Wei with different imaging conditions of Miettinen et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Wei discloses wherein the learning unit performs learning of the machine learning model on a basis of the plurality of reference images (page 5, paragraph 57). Miettinen et al discloses reference images are captured under at least one of a plurality of different environmental conditions or imaging conditions (page 1, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses wherein the learning unit performs learning of the machine learning model on a basis of the plurality of reference images (page 5, paragraph 57). Miettinen et al discloses reference images each having a different posture of the subject (Page 1, paragraph 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 3/6/2026